Abstract
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 marks an important legislative reform in the governance of Waqf properties in India. By introducing measures such as digitisation of records, audit obligations, and mandatory inclusion of women in Waqf Boards, the amendment seeks to address long-standing concerns of corruption, encroachment, and lack of transparency.
This article analyses the amendment against the background of India’s constitutional provisions on religious freedom, judicial precedents, and earlier statutory frameworks. It argues that while the amendment promotes accountability and inclusivity, its implementation will determine whether it truly fulfils the objectives of safeguarding community assets and ensuring equitable access to their benefits.
Introduction
Waqf, under Islamic law, refers to the permanent dedication of property for religious, charitable, or community welfare purposes.
In India:
- Waqf properties constitute one of the largest sets of endowed assets in the world.
- Nearly six lakh properties are spread across states.
The Waqf Act, 1995 provided the statutory foundation for their administration, supplemented by amendments.
However, persistent issues have plagued Waqf governance:
- Mismanagement and corruption
- Illegal alienation of property
- Lack of representation of marginalised groups
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was introduced against this backdrop, emphasising transparency, accountability, and inclusivity.
While the amendment has been welcomed as a step forward, it has also raised questions about:
- State interference in religious endowments
- The scope of minority rights
Legal Jargon and Doctrinal Context
- Mutawalli – The manager of a Waqf, subject to fiduciary duties akin to a trustee under the doctrine of public trust.
- Waqf Property – The corpus of the Waqf, which is inalienable. Once dedicated, it cannot be transferred, sold, or otherwise alienated (Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board [1998] 2 SCC 642).
The Act introduces procedural and regulatory reforms, but these must remain within the boundaries of constitutional protections for religious institutions under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
It reflects the tension between autonomy and regulation:
- Religious communities: Right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion
- The State: Authority to regulate secular aspects such as property management, administration, and dispute resolution
The Proof: Data, Arguments, and Authority
Waqf Property in India
- Worth: Several lakh crores
- Income: Disproportionately low due to encroachment, lack of records, and mismanagement
Reports
The Central Waqf Council has repeatedly highlighted:
- Absence of uniform digitisation
- Weak audit systems
- Poor representation of stakeholders
Reforms under the 2025 Amendment
- Digitisation of Records
- All Waqf properties must be digitally registered.
- Online records accessible to the public.
- Expected to reduce fraudulent claims and illegal transfers.
- Audit and Accountability
- Annual audits of Waqf Boards and properties made mandatory.
- Strengthens supervisory role of the Central Waqf Council.
- Gender Inclusivity
- For the first time, representation of women on Waqf Boards is mandatory.
- Aligns with Article 14 and gender justice.
- Dispute Resolution
- Waqf Tribunals must dispose of cases within a fixed time period.
- Ensures disputes do not drag on indefinitely.
These reforms balance religious autonomy with public accountability.
Judicial Precedents
- Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (AIR 1979 SC 289)
Property once dedicated to Waqf remains Waqf forever. - Abdul Rahim v. Sk. Abdul Zabar ([2009] 6 SCC 160)
Mutawalli is a manager, not an owner, bound by fiduciary obligations. - Union of India v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1984 SC 1688)
State regulation of Waqf matters upheld under the Concurrent List.
These precedents provide the legal foundation for the 2025 Amendment.
Critical Analysis
Strengths
- Transparency through digitisation
- Accountability via audits
- Inclusivity with women’s representation
Concerns
- Implementation Challenges – State Waqf Boards may lack institutional capacity.
- Political Interference – Risk of central authority misuse.
- Minority Rights Concerns – Fear of dilution of community autonomy.
Despite challenges, the Act embeds rule of law, gender justice, and good governance into Waqf administration.
Conclusion
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is a milestone in Indian Waqf law.
It enhances:
- Transparency (digitisation)
- Accountability (audits)
- Inclusivity (women’s representation)
While constitutionally consistent, its success depends on robust implementation and judicial oversight.
The amendment shows that regulation of religious endowments is not inconsistent with religious freedom, provided it is reasonable and directed towards public welfare.
Its effectiveness will be measured by whether Waqf properties are preserved and utilised for the benefit of the communities they were intended to serve.
References
- The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
- The Waqf Act, 1995
- Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1979 SC 289
- Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board [1998] 2 SCC 642
- Abdul Rahim v. Sk. Abdul Zabar [2009] 6 SCC 160
- Union of India v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1984 SC 1688
- Central Waqf Council Reports, Government of India
- Parliamentary Debates, 2025
- (Citations formatted as per OSCOLA 4th edn.)
FAQs
Q1. What is Waqf property?
A Waqf is a permanent dedication of property under Islamic law, for purposes recognised as religious, charitable, or beneficial to the community.
Q2. What reforms does the 2025 Amendment introduce?
It mandates digitisation of records, regular audits, speedy dispute resolution, and women’s representation in Waqf Boards.
Q3. Does the Act interfere with minority rights?
No. It regulates secular aspects of administration while leaving religious matters untouched, consistent with Articles 25 and 26.
Q4. Why was the amendment considered necessary?
To address corruption, encroachment, and lack of transparency in Waqf property management.
Q5. Can the amendment be challenged in court?
Yes. Challenges may arise on grounds of excessive state control, but judicial precedent suggests that reasonable regulation is constitutionally valid.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
